For the second straight Grand Slam Roger Federer had to come back from the brink to stay alive. Last month at the French Open the Swiss knocked out Juan Martin Del Potro in five sets after the Argentine led 2-0. Today, the opposition was Juliean Benneteau. The Frenchman is no where near as formidable as Del Potro, but he too had Federer ominously by the throat leading by two sets. Yet it wasn’t enough.

Federer, for the eighth time in his illustrious career, chipped away and eventually wore down a cramping Benneteau to win 4-6, 6-7(3), 6-2, 7-6(6), 6-1.

“I did start to play better and better as the match went on, and that’s kind of what I expected of myself once a set down or two sets to love down,” said Federer who will return to No. 1 with a seventh Wimbledon title. “That I guess comes with experience, but also experience alone is not going to win you the match. I had to push deep and extremely hard, and I’m very happy with the way things sort of happened at the end.”

After breezing the first two rounds losing just nine games, Federer looked “dodgy” for much of the match today. Benneteau played well but I though Roger’s shots didn’t have much on them and his movement was again subpar.

“He played well. Mentally he’s a rock you know,” Benneteau said. “He’s two sets down and he doesn’t show anything. After that if your level is a little bit lower, right here, right now he takes the opportunity. He has a capacity also to improve his game during the match. So you have to be focused every point, every point against him. If you don’t make the right shot tactically you lose the point almost. So it’s tough.”

For me the turning point came early in the third when Benneteau slipped and landed awkwardly. He wasn’t injured but the fall disrupted his momentum and Federer took advantage, and really never let up.

Benneteau hung in the fourth coming within two points of victory but the nerves got the better of him. In the fifth, Federer’s experience and fitness pulled him through. It’s best of five for a reason – Benneteau had beaten Federer in three in Paris of 2009 – and Roger’s that good in the clutch. How manytitles does Benneteau have? That’s right, zero.

“Two sets down and he’s a champion,” Benneteau added. “He arrived to win the match in five sets and he was not in control. I think he was a little bit panicked but not comfortable. But at the end of the day he’s here. He doesn’t make any mistakes. At the end of the fourth set his serve was incredible.”

Despite his poor play, luckily for Federer there’s little resistance in his path on Monday with Xavier Malisse, who he leads 9-1, and then maybe on Wednesday another pigeon, Mikhail Youzhny.

Still, like the French, Federer will have to play better and I think he will.

Fed’s main rival Novak Djokovic took care of Radek Stepanek in four sets. Djokovic looked scratchy early before getting into gear and rolling the Czech 4-6, 6-2, 6-2, 6-2.

“I was trying to focus from the start of my match,” the defending champ said. “Obviously I had a lot of chances in the opening set. But being aware of his qualities and experience, I wasn’t too surprised with the way he played in important moments. He was mentally very composed. He was out there to win a match. I was a set down, but managed to make the crucial break in the opening game of the second set, and then I thought I played really well.”

Richard Gasquet, who could meet Djokovic in the quarters, also advanced along with Denis Istomin and Florian Mayer, a five-set winner over the towering Jerzy Janowicz.

Tomorrow, Andy Murray is back but this time as the favorite to come out of the bottom half. Murray battles Marcos Baghdatis who beat Andy in their first meeting at Wimbledon many years ago. I like Marcos as a player but Murray should get through easily.

I also like JW Tsonga to roll past Lukas Lacko and Phil Kohlschreiber to end the run of Nadal-killer Lukas Rosol. The 26-year-old Rosol must be… well, I don’t know but after pulling one of the greatest upsets in tennis history I just don’t think he can back it up against the experienced German.

The other matches, however, are awfully close to call. I think David Ferrer nips Andy Roddick. Roddick just hasn’t impressed me with that baseline game and his serve isn’t biting on the grass like it use to. So advantage Ferrer.

If Fish is fit after that five-setter against James Ward I’ll take him over David Goffin. I’ll give a slight edge to Brian Baker over Benoit Paire but the Frenchman who is a joy to watch.

And I’ll go with Marin Cilic to again beat Sam Querrey on grass and I’ll take Juan Martin Del Potro to edge Kei Nishikori, though I really think Kei could land the upset.

Istomin vs Youz could be interesting; they are 1-1. But Istomin is a talented player. I wonder if he could break through here to make his first QFs? He already made history today by becoming “the first Uzbek” to reach the R16, according to the ATP.

As for tomorrow, Roddick vs Ferrer could be an “upset” with Andy winning. I know that Ferrer has had – by far – the better season, but Roddick has more history on grass. Plus, it’s over five sets so that gives Roddick more space; he won in their match at the USO last summer in 4. Their matches are usually tight. Anyhow, we’ll see.

I also think Goffin could take Fish out, and that Rosol might surprise with one more win? Hard to say, but he was so determined the other day, and he doesn’t have Gulbis’ history of just “going away” after a win, so maybe he’ll hang in there?

I agree Delpo/Nishikori could be a tough battle. So could Cilic and Sam – I can’t say who’ll come out of these, but I am inclined to say Delpo, and Sam for his first (?) QF at a slam??

Baggy could, maybe, sneak a set from Andy, too. The Bagman likes the grass and he loves the big stage.

maybe a bit off topic, but it’s the 8th time Fed has come back from two sets to love down to win in 5, is that a record in itself or has any other player had more 0-2 comeback wins in his career?

also Fed has reached the R16 or 4th round at a GS for the 43rd time in his career, he ties Connors who also reached this stage 43 times, is this a record also or has some unkownn player reached even more fourth rounds?

already checked google in general and tennis28 in specific and couldn’t find any mention of it anywhere: maybe two new records to add to the list?

“Baggy could, maybe, sneak a set from Andy, too. The Bagman likes the grass and he loves the big stage.”

karlovic complained that he was robbed by the line judges in his match against murray; they called more than a dozen foot faults on him, either on second serves or at crucial points during the matches; watching at home i couldn’t believe how scandalous it was; he even talked to the umpire about it at the end but the being the shy quiet giant he is tried to remain cool during the match itself (no outbursts a la serena)

if the same thing happens to baghdatis i don’t think he will be so..err.. “polite” about it…

after hawkeye maybe it’s time to point a camera at the players feet while serving so they can start challenging those calls as well; i remember in the 90s some tournaments had one camera always doing close ups of Edberg feet while serving, because of his unusual service motion, so technology wise it shouldn’t be to difficult

xmike, I read those article. Also read 50% of lines people are not British. BUT, I like your idea of a camera. AND I think if Karlovic is that upset, he should file a complaint so they have to review the tapes and look into it.

He is Russian, like all those players who are playing for those “……stan” countries, they are paying them good money, why not. They all know they cannot make it in Russia, to many good players so they move (for a good money) to those oil rich former Soviet republics.

Same thing is with USA BB players who cannot make it in USA. if you watch European BB you will see Bulgarian, Macedonian, Croatian, Bosnian players who don’t speak any other language but english with American accent, they are only part time Croatian, Macedonian etc:)

Julien was always a thorn in the flesh of Roger and yesterday he once again had him in the dumps. I would say Roger was very lucky to get through. Afterall, luck needs to side with him too since he has been almost unlucky in majors for the past two years even losing from a position of being match points up. But playing in this way is not going to help Roger in his future encounters. Although he has a relatively easy passage upto the Semis where he will probably meet Novak, it is time that he shifts to another gear to fire him up. The prospect of being No.1 after winning Wimbledon is too much pressure on Roger and I think he should free that from his mind as he has a long way to that goal.

He was born in Russia, lives in Russia and surname is Russian. If you go on Wiki ( I no it says his father is Uzbekistani, he never lived in Uzbekistan nor he lives now), and check the other players( male and female) that play under flags of Kazahstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbejdzan you will find that majority were born and live in Russia and they are ethnic Russians. It is easy to tell apart native people from Russians. That was my point.
But if we are to do the way you are saying then Marat Safin is not Russian he is Tatar.
I can be Inuit I don’t know I will do DNA test.
“Zovi me i loncem, samo nemoj da me razbijes”

Istomin is a Slavic surname, from an old Slavic name. It should be the surname of his father, but we know that Kasparov opted for a Russian surname, though his father’s was Vainstein and his mother’s Kasparian.

Yes, Kasparov is Russian with non Russian parents. You are right, people use to change their names and surnames from different reasons once they settled in Russia, it is huge contry, taking Slavic ones. Reading your previous posts I know you are familiar with Slavic History but I wouldn’t like to go there. That kind of discussion requires good meze and bottle of good Vodka to start with.

Btw I watching Baker vs Paire, good match, Baker is one set up. One set a piece.

I wrote here once that I wrote a thesis in comparative phonology, and I STILL reside in Eastern Europe. So I guess that Istomin is Russian, by I lack some facts.

Anyway, about Kasparov: I never fully understood why he changed his surname. I don’t believe that this background could endanger his chess career: Botvinnik, Tal are a vivid example of this, though Bronstein (my fav) is not. There was a very powerful lobby in Soviet chess, the Armenian one – and it backed Kasparov. So… who knows?

About tennis now: I am very happy with Nole’s game against Harrison and Stepanek. He improves from match to match. His forehand still doesn’t click the way I’d like to, but it gives me hope he could play a good semi, and perhaps make the final.

dari – yes, i like paszek after her few great performance in eastbourne and wimbledon. Wickermiyer was serving for the match in this match too, another comeback by tamira. how far can she get..its getting tougher now..

I wasn’t really in to chess, but my father was and that how I know about it. You forgot Tigran Petrosian:). It was very strong Jewish-Armenian and Georgian, not so many Russians (Spaski, Karpov), chess culture in SSSR if I can say so, you will find out that lot of Jews were taking Slavic names and surnames by free choice, but not Baltic states, Georgia (Gruzija) Armenia. If you check politbiro of Russian Communist Party in 1900-1917, before and after revolution, you will find out that 70% were not Russian though they had Russian names.

Sorry, but the reality is Rafa should have found a way to navigate through the match, he didn’t. The one match wonder kid (Rosol)flamed out, proving he really did play the match of his life. I know Rafa tried to use his tool bag of gamemenship stuff, but he needed better physical strategy tactics. Kosol was all into the gamesmenship stuff himself and it seemed to keep him focused. Too bad, the tourney seems a little lighter without Beast playing, especially this early :(.

True, the tourny does seem light w/o such a major name. I don’t think rafa could have done much else in the 5th at all imo. He was lucky to get the first set, could have played better in set 2 and 3, very good in 4th, BUT the 5th he just didn’t really get a look in.

Like you said- rosol played the match of his life. Got to accept it as a fan unfortunately.

Very happy and pleased that fed survived though. Had he lost then this tourny would have been somewhat screwed with the biggest 2 names in the sport going out within the first 5 days.

Fed needs to improve greatly though. Hope he does. My bracket needs him to get to the final.

USA! Good for Serena to find a way, Baker into 16 and Roddick up 5-1! I didn’t pick him in my bracket, didn’t think he would be healthy enough to outlast ferrer, even tjough je is a far superior grass player. We gonna see

Fed had 3 set points in the 2nd set from JB, at that point would have been 1 set all. But alas, just shows you the fine line these guys play on. When a point here, then the whole landscape of the match changes.

Kimmi, the last time Rafa wasn’t in the final at Wimbledon (2009 didn’t play), who was? Roddick. And he nearly won. I wasn’t about to write him off too easily. That said, Ferrer is tenacious and having a very strong season. Interesting that Ferrer and Roddick were the two who won the week-before-Wimbledon events. But I read a stat that no one who won the week before has gone on to win the title.

This side of the draw – even without Rafa – is still loaded with possible contenders: Murray, Delpo, Tsonga especially. Delpo seems to be getting stronger as this match progresses.

As tennis-planet they quoted Fed’s reaction to the Rafa upset:

“I think 15 years ago you had matches like this so much more often on the faster surfaces, that a guy could catch fire and just run through you,” Federer said. “Today it’s virtually impossible because you make so many more returns these days and conditions are so much slower with the elements. Whereas it was just amazing to see that it was possible. Okay, he didn’t play like that for five sets, but in the fifth it was just a joke. I was laughing because of his performance for 10 minutes after that. I couldn’t believe that he pulled it off the way he did. Of course I do feel bad for Rafa because it’s a tough loss; it’s Wimbledon; it’s the way things happen.”

“I was laughing because of his performance for 10 minutes after that”. Should that be the reaction of a champion? In other words he was gloating at Rafa’s loss. The man has a lot to learn off the court. Can you imagine the reaction if Rafa had made those comments – the Fedtards would have waged war! His statement is all over the news!

@Mark!
Give it up already. You’re takin it out of context. It was laughable, but not the way you think. Rosol was hitting ridiculuously. Winners all over the place. Yes, it was laughable how ridiculous his shots were. Don’t you get it? Heis laughte wasn’t “AT” Rafa….

Your just a sore loser and you’re trying to make all Feds fault, as usual. Rafa will be back.

“There is not much to say aside from the fact that Rosol played an incredible match. I don’t think Rafa played that bad but there’s not that much he could do. “You have those days when your opponents have nothing to lose and they’re going for all the shots, so congratulations to him. Everybody thought maybe he’s going to have some ups and downs in the fifth set, but he proved everybody wrong.
“That’s what happens: even though somebody is ranked 100 places lower than you are, on a given day, especially on the grass, if somebody serves that big, anything can happen.”

- Four-time major champion Kim Clijsters

“I just wanted Nadal to come back and win. I think he did everything right to try to stay in the match, especially in the fifth set, but the guy played incredible. “For his first time at Wimbledon, it was unbelievable. The decisions he was making, whenever he touched the ball, it was either a winner or an ace.
“I’m curious to see how he’s going to play tomorrow because… to me he looked a little bit arrogant out there. I wonder how he’ll react in his next match, if he can keep his feet on the ground.”

GLAD kim was rooting for rafa. Nole also seems to have empathy for rafa.

i think general consensus was that rafa was unlucky facing a capable player who just happened to play his best tennis ever.

Brando, when he was asked directly about it, Nole also mentioned that the stoppage to close the roof may have affected Rafa’s momentum:

“It’s really hard to say. I mean, Rafa knew what’s best for him. Obviously it distracted him a little bit because he was playing well in that fourth set.”

His full answer is as follows:

“NOVAK DJOKOVIC: It’s hard to judge because there are rules that have been there for years. It’s not on us to decide if the roof is going to be open or closed. From a players’ perspective, I think it’s really important that people from organization and everybody take the opinion of the player very seriously, you know.

It’s really hard to say. I mean, Rafa knew what’s best for him. Obviously it distracted him a little bit because he was playing well in that fourth set.

But that’s what happens. These are the conditions. You cannot affect the weather. Today we got to the court, they closed the roof, and then we saw sunshine and clear blue sky. But the rule is you cannot open the roof when it is closed. That’s what I was said.

I thought I played well under these conditions. The last two matches I’ve played under the closed roof.”

Nole has played really well with the roof closed actually. But he did say it is more humid and so the balls puff up and get heavier, and the grass is more slippery, so you can see how a big, flat hitter could take advantage of that, as Rosol did.

Yes, i have to agree with nole there. I too also felt at the time that had they continued then rafa probably would have won. Pat cash thought the same:

Former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash

“Would Nadal have won without the break to close the roof? Yes. But the incredible thing is Rosol had 40 minutes to sweat on this. He will have had all sorts of things going through his mind.

“It’s usually a classic case of the guy’s had a chance to think about this and melts. But he didn’t.
“I remember Becker being beaten by Doohan in the second round 25 years ago but since then this is the biggest upset, certainly on the men’s side. It doesn’t get much better than that.
“The fact that he continued to play that quality of tennis the whole way through just goes to show how good a player he is if it all goes his way. It was pretty amazing. Nadal out of the tournament is good news for every player.”

and he’s right about the end bit there. rafa losing was GOOD NEWS for the rest really, as he was most people’s fav at the start.

I don’t blame the other players if they were happy rafa lost. Only natural to feel pleased that life maybe easier ahead if a major obstacle is out of their path.

I mean momentum is obviously real (witness this random WTA player winning every point in a set today) but it doesn’t explain anything and it has no inertia. “Momentum” comes and goes, sometimes slowly, sometimes instantly. It’s just a nice framework people use sometimes to narrativize sport, which is simply to misunderstand how sport actually works. (Take this last Murray service game as an example – “momentum” was with Baggy, who won two or three points in a row. But then! magic! Murray won the next few! What a great mystery to the partisans of “momentum.”) To say Rafa would have won because he had the momentum is to do several things:

1. Remove any responsibility for how he actually played from Rafa. Actually, if anything, the break should have helped Rafa. Rafa is indisputably a better player than Rosol, and in near-upset situations, breaks generally tend to help the better player because they provide an opportunity to reflect on what’s going on and what they have been doing wrong and what they can do better. And even if you don’t believe that, it’s hardly the break’s fault that Rafa came out and dropped his opening service game.

2. Engage in mythologizing about sports psychology.

3. Duplicitously take advantage of the fact that X happened (Rosol won) instead of Y (Rafa won) to make “x” sound inevitable. If Rafa had won the fifth set easily, people would just be talking about how the long break helped him collect himself instead of talking about how it broke his “momentum.” See what I mean? It’s similar to the point I made the other day about BS psychological explanations, which just take advantage of knowing what happened to “explain” it even though there is no actual ex ante explanatory power in the psychological explanation. Okay, that’s probably not very clear. What I mean is this: often in tennis, the same factor can be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. For example, being the underdog in a match supposedly lets you hit freely and that’s how we often “explain” unexpected upsets. But the converse of “the underdog” is “the experienced,” and so when the more experienced player manages to pull himself out of the situation (say, if Rafa had won in the fifth), we say he took advantage of his experience. But it’s just tautological.

Anyway, the point is momentum can dissipate instantly, so it doesn’t explain anything. The claim is dangerously stupid, and just looking at any tournament draw shows that it’s not unusual at all to win one set 6-2, 6-1, or 6-0, and then lose the following set. So sure, momentum is not a myth, but it’s a useless and stupid concept.

And actually, as someone who admires Rafa quite a lot, I think Cash’s claim (also made by several on this forum) is inadvertently quite denigrating. Rafa lost _because_ of the break? So you’re saying he can’t handle a change in conditions or a break from playing as well as Rosol? Wow, that’s real complimentary. Way to go. Actually, he lost because Rosol played way better than him for almost the entire match and he was lucky not to lose in straight sets.

That’s your opinion, Eric, that’s it’s “useless” and “stupid”, which is fine, but all I am pointing out is that several well qualified people have written books about this “stupid” topic, and definitely, as you say, it is a narrative device for sports commentators, writers, and fans, and has been for years. So why is it then useless? Narrative devices aren’t. Do narrative devices have veracity? Sometimes, yes, narratives do sometimes have climactic moments, clearly defined expositions, resolutions, etc, so too do matches, arguably at least.

Anyhow, it’s a matter of opinion. I don’t think it’s a certain science or anything, but nor do I think it’s “useless”. Same with stats – they don’t tell the whole story either, but they are useful to look at; you could say they tell part of it, in my opinion of course.

Well in the terms of sports psychology, then, my argument is that the human mind, and by extension tennis, is too complicated for simplistic extrapolations from “momentum” to convince me, at least, of anything. (Of course it’s a matter of opinion whether or not you believe Cash that Rafa would have won without the long break. I would be fine with it if his answer had been “maybe,” instead of “yes.” That level of certainty is absurd.) I am not at all denying that there is such a thing as being ‘in the zone’; quite the contrary.

I do think narratives have veracity, just not usually the narratives sportswriters make up. There’s no inevitability in anything.

I agree Eric, that Cash was wrong to say it like fact “yes”. I know we use such structures and devices to bring some sort of order to the chaos of lives, stories, and tennis matches.

It is interesting, though, that Rafa himself felt the stoppage was not “the best” for him, per his presser comments. He believed on some level that it was detrimental and didn’t want to stop when they proposed it. He probably knew he was on a bit of a roll. Personally I don’t think “momentum” can be used as a full scale explanation for the loss – that discounts the earlier sets, as you already pointed out – and who knows if Rafa would have won the 5th without the stoppage to close the roof? However, it seems at least plausible that it might’ve quelled the adrenaline Rafa may’ve been feeling after winning the 4th set rather decisively.

Q. What were your thoughts about the decision to delay the fifth set and close the roof?

RAFAEL NADAL: For sure wasn’t the best one for me. But that’s what it is and accept. Accept that he came back and played unbelievable the fifth.
I was playing well in the fourth. I think I played a great fourth set. Sure the stop this time didn’t help me. That’s the sport. That’s it.
Only thing that I can do is come back home, rest I need and I deserve. So that’s what I can do, nothing else.

what was that year at the Aussie open, cilic played one five setter after another. people that he would beat easily, he played five setter with them. Will he have legs to fight the winner of murray/baggy.

I don’t see that at all. As I said above, I tend to think anything that provides a “reset” of the match, so to speak, or an opportunity for the players to re-think things, benefits the better player (Murray) to collect himself.

Mark Says:
“I was laughing because of his performance for 10 minutes after that”. Should that be the reaction of a champion? In other words he was gloating at Rafa’s loss. The man has a lot to learn off the court. Can you imagine the reaction if Rafa had made those comments – the Fedtards would have waged war! His statement is all over the news!

June 30th, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Skeezer,

I am with you on this one!

Mark, get a grip will you?

Don’t you get it?

Posting this rubbish everywhere. You know, I believe that Rafa did not mean to deliberately “bump” rosol on the change over. I choose to believe that because I think what he said was credible. If I was anything like you, I could make something out of it, but I choose to believe that he was pumped up, and getting into his zone. On the other hand, Rosol doesn’t think that. That’s up to him.

If there was one person in the whole world who didn’t think that rafa losing was a joke, then name them. It is a joke that he isn’t in the tournament, but he will be back. Or may be you just doubt him now?

From the top seeds I think Nole is the one looking more solid with his game, even playing better than last year at Wimbledon. Curious to see what will happen when and if he plays Federer. Should be one for the ages.

Eric, because ESPN were showing Cilic/Querrey I had a stream on my computer for Andy/Baggy, not sure which network. Didn’t catch the commentators’ explanation. But not sure if you heard P-Mac’s take? He agrees with you and thinks it should favour the better player, referring to Murray. Fowler, however, brought up the conditions too, that they might favour Baggy, and they both seemed to end the conversation unsure, lol – so who knows.

Nina, I think Nole has looked sharp too. The last set versus Steps was lovely, and he was so focused against a “game” Harrison. I hope he can keep it up. He could face Gasquet in the quarters, which could be a tough test. But Victor first.

It says right on the board on court “play will stop at 11:00 pm” (or similar) – bizarre hey? P-Mac implying there will be a riot, hee hee. Well maybe not, but he’s saying the crowd won’t be happy. And yes, I presume the match would be finished on Monday?? Strange!

That match had everything: it started in cold, windy conditions then switched to floodlights and a humid atmosphere, it had drunken audience members let in at the last minute, wardrobe malfunctions, nasty slip ups. Wimbledon = tradition? hehe

I wonder: would they have allowed play to continue past the curfew if Britain’s great hope for a Grand Slam hadn’t been one game away from victory?

If it had been Baghdatis and not Murray serving for it, would they have been so lenient? My guess is probably not.

If, next time, they immediately halt play when the curfew goes into effect, they’ll open themselves up to charges of favoritism. The alternative, to let the players keep going as long as it takes, means financial liability and conflict with the Wimbledon community.

I hope you’re wrong steve-o, and that if the situation were reversed, they would’ve let Baggy serve it out too. I guess we won’t know until that situation happens. But maybe this will spur some debate within the Wimbledon community?

@jane: the problem is that they have set a precedent now. From now on, every time the players go over curfew, the tournament’s response will be judged relative what they did this time.

A player less generous than Baghdatis might complain that he thought they were going to call a halt at 11:00 sharp, he had his eye on the clock, and the fact that they decided to continue distracted him and made him play poorly. And he would have a point.

The most likely reason for the decision is that they simply decided to let the match finish, rather than force the entire audience to come back two days later just to see five minutes of tennis.

But who knows? Next time it might be a much closer match and they might stop it at a far more crucial juncture.

If they stick to the clock, then everyone knows what the rules are, and although there may be grumbling from the loser of the match, no one can accuse the tournament of being unfair.

Allowing the tournament officials to arbitrarily declare when play should stop for the night allows them to significantly influence the course of play. And that poses thorny questions of fairness and consistency.

“In theory play should have been suspended and resumed in around 40 hours’ time. But with tournament referee Andrew Jarrett watching from the sidelines, Murray was allowed to serve. He held to love and the match was his. That’s how it goes, in a story like this.”

I think the good thing is playing until 11:02 may spur debate about the curfew time in the first place. It’s rather arbitrary. The AO and USO don’t halt a match precisely at midnight or whatever. Why should Wimbledon? What’s the point of the roof/lights if they can’t play on. I don’t really “get” the point of the curfew in the first place.

Eric, this is what I could find for reasoning: “Wimbledon council had stipulated play must stop at that time to allow fans the chance to get back home.” and “That 11 o’clock deadline is a public safety measure imposed by the local authority.”

What i don’t get is this – in a major city like London (or a suburb thereof) does this mean that the tube and buses stop working at 11:00 or midnight, or what? Surely they must run considerably later. Anyhow, as I say, maybe the issue should be discussed further.

Thank you Sally for reposting your blog about Wimbledon. It inspired me to look at the astrology which, up until this morning, I’d only glanced at.

It’s impossible not to agree with your astrological take on Federer’s chart – Jupiter, planet of good fortune, on his Midheaven – angle of career and status – virtually exact on the day of the final is stunning. (For the uninitiated, note that Jupiter’s cycle is 12 years. In other words, Jupiter last transited his Midheaven 12 years ago.)

The sign of Gemini features very strongly in recent and current astrology. Jupiter is on his way through his year long journey through this sign and we also have Venus in the middle of an unusually long visit to the sign of the Twins. However, when I looked at the chart for the beginning of this year’s tournament (data 11.30 BST, 25 June 2012, 51N25, 0W12) there were other features that jumped out for exploration.

Astrology Chart for Wimbledon, June 25th 2012 11:30am BST

The chart has a Virgo Ascendant, Moon in Virgo conjunct the Ascendant and Mars in Virgo in the first house. In my view, this makes the chart “radical”. In other words, the symbolism accurately reflects the event in question.

Mars is the god of war and is an especially strong planet when considering one to one combat, and Virgo is the sign of precision and pinpoint accuracy. The chart ruler is therefore Mercury who, interestingly, is void of course – at 29 degrees of Cancer this planet will make no aspects to the other planets before changing sign and moving on into Leo. This suggests that the favourite will not win.

The other dominant features are two major aspects:

Jupiter square Neptune – exact on the day that the tournament started
The even more rare Uranus square Pluto, exact on the day before the tournament started
The first aspect suggests a fuzzy and unobvious picture and the second aspect signals the unexpected. Uranus (shocks) and Pluto (endings) suggests an event that will be characterized by shock exits, born out by the fact that Venus Williams went out in the first round and Nadal got knocked out on day four. With this astrology in mind it’s a tall order to predict the men’s singles winner, but I do think it will be a surprise.

My own hunch is to go with Jo Wilfried Tsonga. I didn’t know anything about his chart but thought he looked very Taurean, with his thick set frame and bull neck. He is in fact an Aries, but his all important Mars turns out to be in Taurus and – within one day of the Wimbledon final – his progressed Sun will be conjunct that planet.

I also like the fact that his progressed Moon is conjunct his natal Moon (an aspect that occurs only once every 28 years) and that his Solar Return chart for this year has a Midheaven of 12 Gemini, exactly the same as the chart for the beginning of the tournament. He also has Venus conjunct the Midheaven in his Solar Return chart, picking this out as a year of blessings.

Finally I am intrigued to see that he has the lesser known Chiron at 6.06 Gemini – exactly conjunct Federer’s Midheaven of 6.10 Gemini. So as Sally has pointed out, Jupiter will be transiting Federer’s Midheaven in time for the final, but of course will also be transiting Tsonga’s Chiron. I may be getting caught up with the Jupiter – Neptune square here and going into my own fantasy, but I love the idea of a Federer – Tsonga final, a battle of the giants! Fingers crossed!

I think it may be absurd to play until 2, 3 and 4 a.m., as at the AO occasionally. Maybe GS tournaments need to start matches sooner – why 1:00 pm? Why not 11:00 am? That way they’d have some leeway for matches going long, like Serena’s did for instance. That and/or maybe they should consider imposing not an “end of play for the day” curfew but instead a curfew for the “latest match start” – if matches start late then they are at risk of being carried over. Or the other option is to add a caveat to the 11:00 pm rule that the present game (or set?) must be finished. It needs some tweaking perhaps.

There is a constant problem at the FO with matches being carried over, and yet they insist on starting at 1:00 regardless. Get lights, get a roof, start earlier – do something. Stubborn.

The USO, meanwhile, does a multi-million dollar renovation but adds no roof!? Madness.

The AO, as mentioned, sometimes starts matches at 11:00 pm! I am sure that once Nole played until 2:00 am, and didn’t Hewitt play until 4:00 am onces – Craziness.

He is already No 1 and upcoming events will only continue to increase the gap between him and the rest. Novak Djokovic will reign supreme for the next three years.

The Serbian has an extraordinary horoscope with ‘Planet-Z’, a powerful exoplanet, in greatest exaltation in his horoscope. ‘Planet-Z’ has propelled him into the highest echelons of fame and made him one of the greatest ever. Djokovic has his personal planets in Taurus and Pisces. While Taurus is responsible for his aggression and consistency, Pisces blesses him with agility and fluidity. The combination of these two fun loving zodiac signs gives him the jovial personality.

Novak is currently going through the best phase of his life astrologically. Saturn has transited and got exalted in Libra, his 11th house of labhasthan and it would be a ‘profitable’ phase until the middle of 2015.

Expect him to add another 6-8 Grand Slams in this three-year period and end up with a total tally beyond 15 by the time he retires. Djokovic, who plays well on any surface, has the best chances to displace the king of clay Rafael Nadal in the 2012 French Open. His 43-match winning streak was halted in French Open last year by Roger Federer. But Djokovic will win this time if and when they meet this year. He will also have a superior win ratio from now onwards whenever the two meet in any event.

Djoko has high chances of improving upon his Beijing bronze in the London Olympics. He would win at least the silver if not a gold. His ventures in restaurant, real estate and entertainment would flourish and he would later become a business mogul.

This would be one of the hardest fought Wimbledon ever. While the results in the men’s category may not surprise many, the women’s section could spring a surprise or two.

In the last four years, the men’s singles have been dominated by players ruled by ‘Planet-Z’-Nadal and Djokovic. Thanks to Uranus, Federer won in 2009. But it has been a far cry from the dominance the he demonstrated from 2003 to 2007. In 2012 also, the impact of Uranus may not be too imposing and Federer would not pose a big challenge. The real battle would be between Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic definitely holds an edge over Rafael as the Spaniard has just won the French Open and reaffirmed his supremacy on clay courts. ‘Planet-Y’ could put Djoker on top this time in a sort of a karmic balancing act.

The women’s singles is definitely a tougher proposition with six players who have strong horoscopes in the fray to challenge the might of No 1 Sharapova. Besides Petra Kvitova and Victoria Azarenka, 10th ranked Sara Errani is also a tough competitor. The finalist in the recently-concluded French Open has an extraordinary horoscope and the fact that she has not won a Grand Slam yet makes her a dangerous opponent. Sara definitely has it in her to win a Grand Slam and she may just choose to open her tally at the grandest slam. Dominika Cibulkova, Sabine Lisicki and Ana Ivanovic also have some outside chances.

While the planets are definitely in favour of Djokovic and Sharapova retaining their top positions, some strong contenders would make this Wimbledon a cracker of an event.
—Lobo is a city-based astrologer

I am traying to compare AO and Wimbledon, I don’t know how safe is in London, haven’t been their, how far is from Wimbledon to city, and how public transports operates but what I know in Melbourne they do operate trams from tennis courts until last game finishes (midnight…2am, doesn’t matter), it is very well organized with lot of volontiers helpping the people to find their way around, you can go to Flinders station (main terminal), plenty of taxis, for ticket holders transport is free, all you need is tennis ticket and jump in any tramcar or shuttle bus that operates for AO. It is real festival of joy in Melblurne during AO. there is lot of us who are coming from all over Australia to enjoy tennis and beautiful city of Melbourne. I know London is bigger city but sure they can orginize transport particulary in olympic year:)
My take on whether or not they would stop match if it was to go longer then 11pm. Knowing Brittish I am sure they would do what they said regardless if it is good or not for Brittish player, I have no dubt about that and I like the for that. This few minitues was give and take situation judged, properly, by result ATM, same as when your girlfriend is ranning late and you give her extra 15 minutes but not more, talking about PMPT (premobilephonetimes) That was when I was dating girls. They wouldn’ wait for me longer then 5 minutes but I was giving them 15 minutes.

Thanks, haven’t seen the match, fell asleep couldn’t stay awake…it was 4am, I like them both as a players and as personalites. Cypriot man always gives hard time to Nole too. I remember their match from AO one year that went well in to the night, way pass 11:02pm :)

Federer escapes again ??? Is that the right thing to use ??? This is the first five setter at Wimbledon, Roger is having and he did very well to win it. He earned it by his efforts and not through the gift of somebody.